Chronic. During the first round of the 2017 presidential election, four candidates had achieved between 20% and 24% of the votes: in other words, many second rounds were possible and could have occurred, within a deeply fragmented political and ideological landscape. Until the last moment, the voters of 2022 also have to face considerable uncertainty, and in particular a choice between a second round between the far right and the right (Le Pen versus Macron, whom the great majority of voters now and quite logically place themselves on the right) or between the right and the left (Macron against Mélenchon). This choice is anything but trivial, and it carries with it considerable consequences for the type of public deliberation that will occupy the country for two weeks (and perhaps more): a debate centered on the hunt for immigrants and Muslims in the first case, or the hope of a discussion on wages and working conditions, health and education, social and fiscal justice, renewable energies and public services in the second.
However, whatever the outcome of the election, we can already be sure of one thing: we will not witness the peaceful return of a reassuring left-right divide. Firstly, because the general rightwing of the political landscape and the emergence of a powerful anti-migrant electoral bloc correspond to a heavy trend, which Macronism in power has dangerously accentuated. Then, because it will take a long job for the forces of the left to succeed in uniting and gaining power.
Fundamental tropism
Let’s start with the first point. Things are now written. By appropriating the right’s economic program, Macron’s centrism has also contributed to right-winging the country, pushing the Republican right into a dead-end chase with the far right on identity issues. The most dangerous is the arrogance of the candidate president, who claims to be re-elected without debate or program, or else with sloppy measures betraying his fundamental tropism: to govern first and always for the leaders, by betting on the divisions of his opponents.
The palm of cynicism was reached with the question of pensions. It should be remembered that, to be entitled to a full-rate pension, two conditions must be met: reaching the minimum legal age (currently 62) and validating the required period of contributions, which increases regularly and will soon reach forty-three annuities (at from the 1973 generation). In other words, for all those who pursue higher education and start working at 22 or beyond, raising the legal age to 65 will have absolutely no effect: under current legislation, they will already have to wait 65 years or beyond to have a full pension.
You have 51.86% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.